Skip to content


Kumarakath Ithack Souri Vs. the State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Sales Tax
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case Number Tax Revision Case No. 57 of 1960
Judge
Reported in[1961]12STC721(Ker)
AppellantKumarakath Ithack Souri
RespondentThe State of Kerala
Appellant Advocate A. Madhava Prabhu and; D.R. Kamath, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateThe Government Pleader
Excerpt:
- - 1.this is a petition under section 15-b of the general sales tax act, 1125. in order to attract the revisional jurisdiction of the high court under that section the appellate tribunal should have 'either decided erroneously, or failed to decide' a question of law. the order of the appellate tribunal makes it quite clear that it proceeded on the basis of a concession made and that no question of law was decided erroneously or failed to be decided by it. must fail and has to be dismissed......jurisdiction of the high court under that section the appellate tribunal should have 'either decided erroneously, or failed to decide' a question of law.2. the contention urged before us is that the tribunal should have found that the petitioner was only a commission agent and decided the case on that basis. the order of the appellate tribunal makes it quite clear that it proceeded on the basis of a concession made and that no question of law was decided erroneously or failed to be decided by it. the order specifically states :'the appellant's advocate, however, was amenable to the assessment being modified on the basis of the certificate produced by the appellant from the indian chamber of commerce.3. the rest of the order is confined to the contention of the petitioner that the.....
Judgment:

M.S. Menon, J.

1.This is a petition under Section 15-B of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. In order to attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under that section the Appellate Tribunal should have 'either decided erroneously, or failed to decide' a question of law.

2. The contention urged before us is that the Tribunal should have found that the petitioner was only a commission agent and decided the case on that basis. The order of the Appellate Tribunal makes it quite clear that it proceeded on the basis of a concession made and that no question of law was decided erroneously or failed to be decided by it. The order specifically states :

'The appellant's advocate, however, was amenable to the assessment being modified on the basis of the certificate produced by the appellant from the Indian Chamber of Commerce.

3. The rest of the order is confined to the contention of the petitioner that the rate of Rs. 140 per thousand nuts for the whole year was not proper. The Tribunal went into this contention and fixed different prices for the different periods concerned.

4. In the light of what is stated above the T. R. C. must fail and has to be dismissed. Judgment accordingly. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //